if the app is a fullscreen game the why not let it blast away with 100% cpu?
if its not a fullscreen app but its a rendering window in, say a model loading/viewing/editing app then only draw when you need to, by handling WM_PAINT or WM_ERASEBKGND and using RedrawWindow to tell it to draw when some aspect of the scene has changed.
Any ideas how to limit DX9 FPS?
Don''t waste the precious cycles!
While sleep is going you could have instead done a couple more pathfinding loops or done somne preloading or whatever.
While sleep is going you could have instead done a couple more pathfinding loops or done somne preloading or whatever.
quote:Original post by Ilankt
well, I just realized that the Sleep thing is not good, because it''s not delay just the graphics, it''s delaying all the damn computer...
No, Sleep only suspends that thread. All other running threads are not affected, except potentially positively by having the CPU more available.
Author
quote:Original post by BriTegquote:Original post by Ilankt
well, I just realized that the Sleep thing is not good, because it''s not delay just the graphics, it''s delaying all the damn computer...
No, Sleep only suspends that thread. All other running threads are not affected, except potentially positively by having the CPU more available.
even if I dont use threads in my game?
quote:Original post by BriTegJust. Plain. Wrong.
If you don''t limit FPS, your app basically dominates the system, taking all of the CPU''s spare time (watching task manager will show your app running at 98+% CPU usage).
You do realize you could maximize CPU usage without drawing anything? And you do realize that Windows is a preemptive multi-tasking operating system? You also realize that "99%" CPU utilization is not a bad thing, given that the CPU is otherwise running below peak?
If you absolutely must think about other programs, insert a Sleep(0) at the end of your game loop. Do not limit frame rates; interpolate instead (time-based movement, physics, AI, etc).
quote:The human eye can''t see any difference between 200fps and 100fps. Heck anything over about 40 or 50 fps is going to appear "smooth". Even television is 24 fps (digital is 30, I think).No. HDTV is 60 fps; NTSC is 30; film is 25 - in the US. HDTV in Europe is 50 and PAL is 25. The differences are due to the frequencies at which AC voltage is delivered - 60Hz in the US, 50 in Europe. In other words, the frequency of television was not determined solely by ergonomic factors, but also by engineering ones and thus is no basis upon which to argue a reasonable framerate for games.
Run flat-out, if possible. The more rapidly the frames are refreshed, the smoother the image is to the eye. I know some people who can see flicket at 70Hz on CRTs.
quote:Original post by Ilankt
even if I dont use threads in my game?
Sorry, I should have been more clear.
Most apps, like your game, are single-threaded. Thus Sleep would suspend only your app, not other apps running on the system. If you were to use multiple threads in your app, Sleep would only suspend the thread it was called from.
set up a timer and call your drawing function from the timer instead of on idle time. i don't know what sleep does but it sounds like its just wasting cycles.
[edited by - phongor on March 29, 2004 1:47:44 PM]
[edited by - phongor on March 29, 2004 1:47:44 PM]
just use D3DPRESENT_INTERVAL_IMMEDIATE. That''s what the DX9 samples do. use deltatime for FPS independant code (like physics, camera, etc).
quote:Original post by Oluseyiquote:Original post by BriTegJust. Plain. Wrong.
If you don''t limit FPS, your app basically dominates the system, taking all of the CPU''s spare time (watching task manager will show your app running at 98+% CPU usage).
Not wrong. Most games and graphics demos set up the main game loop to loop as fast as possible, rendering like crazy when there are no Windows messages to process. Thus, the CPU usage skyrockets. Try running any app in Windowed mode that is set up with a game loop like this, hit Ctrl-Alt-Del to open up task manager, sort the processes by CPU usage, and you''ll see the app right at the top with average 97-99% CPU usage.
quote:
You do realize you could maximize CPU usage without drawing anything? And you do realize that Windows is a preemptive multi-tasking operating system? You also realize that "99%" CPU utilization is not a bad thing, given that the CPU is otherwise running below peak?
Yes, I realize all those things.
If you have two apps running with a loop like that, they basically split the CPU, each app running at 48-49%, and running at half-speed. Running three apps will give each approx 1/3, and each will run at approx 1/3 speed. Have you ever tried to run a full-screen game (with a game loop as described above), while running another app that also is running as fast as possible (e.g. searching/downloading crap in the background with KazaaLite, etc.)? Your game runs half as fast, because the CPU is splitting between the game and the other app.
quote:
If you absolutely must think about other programs, insert a Sleep(0) at the end of your game loop. Do not limit frame rates; interpolate instead (time-based movement, physics, AI, etc).
I agree iterpolation is usually the better choice - but it depends on the game. It''s also a bit more work to implement.
quote:
HDTV is 60 fps; NTSC is 30; film is 25 - in the US. HDTV in Europe is 50 and PAL is 25.
Whatever. The point is, you don''t need 745 fps to play Tetris or Super Mario Brothers. Or even Unreal Tournament. Why hammer the CPU like that to achieve frame rates that are absurd and make no difference? Why not put in a little effort to be nice to your fellow apps?
quote:
Run flat-out, if possible. The more rapidly the frames are refreshed, the smoother the image is to the eye. I know some people who can see flicket at 70Hz on CRTs.
A refresh rate of 60 Hz gives me a headache after a while, I need 85 or higher to be comfortable. But when I''m playing a game, I could care less if it''s running at 80 fps or 800 fps - it''s unnecessary overkill. I don''t agree that running flat out is always best. For many scenarios, it''s fine (i.e. it doesn''t hurt), but sometimes not. I wrote a DirectX screen saver, and I know of some network admins that are running it on their main servers at work - if I ran it flat out, without specifically yielding CPU in my main loop, they''d never use it because it would affect server performance for dozens of people.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
